Energy Efficiency

North Africa and the Arab peninsula are among the best insolated regions on earth. There are very few other areas with comparable duration and intensity of sunshine. If anywhere, it is in the huge Arab desert areas that solar electricity could be generated at competitive terms, provided it will be possible to cope with the dust problem.

So far Arab countries have failed to exploit this golden resource, preferring to live on their huge oil and gas wealth.

This situation is slowly starting to change, not because of fears about climate change but because of the need to find long-term alternatives for depleting oil and gas resources. Several countries therefore aim at developing solar power capacities for replacing oil and gas in domestic electricity generation, reserving oil and gas for exports and as feed stuff for their rapidly expanding petrochemical industries.

However, only a few Arab countries have ambitious plans for investing in solar or wind energy. Algeria, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are the most advanced in terms of volume of planned investments and policy formulation.

• Algeria aims at covering one third of its energy demand from renewable sources by 2030 and investing $ 100 billion to that end.
• Saudi Arabia wants to generate 54 GW electricity from solar and wind by 2032 to free scarcer oil for exports.
• The UAE are in the process of preparing a comprehensive regulatory framework including a feed-in tariff incentive scheme. The Emirates Solar Industry Association supports the government in pushing ahead the use of solar power.

But these three countries counter-act their drive for solar power by subsidies on fossil energy, which exceed 50 per cent of the full cost of supply.

As a group the 22 Arab League member countries are among the worst climate polluters on earth. In terms of per capita C02 emissions they easily beat Western champions like USA, Canada or Australia.

As long as most Arab countries keep subsidising fossil fuel and refuse to impose even minimal excise taxes, solar power will not be competitive and no more than a fig leaf.

From a global climate perspective, they should focus on reducing their excessive fossil fuel consumption rather than promoting solar or wind energy. Phasing out fossil fuel subsidies must be the first priority. This should be the key message for the EU-Arab policy dialogue and economic cooperation.

 

What exactly is an energy efficient home? Provided it meets with it’s owner’s energy demands, an energy efficient home is one that reduces energy waste by reducing unnecessary consumption of energy; consequently, energy efficient homes reduce their environmental impact by reducing emissions of greenhouse gasses. Comparing an energy efficient home with a conventional home, one can easily spot the differences in their respective energy behaviours; and energy behaviour translates to home energy bill, thus significant cost savings of energy efficient homes over conventional ones.

There are various areas for improving the energy performance of your home aiming at improving its energy efficiency. But before we look in to those let us first take a look at some important definitions.

What is energy efficiency?

Increasing the energy performance of your home would mean to change your home in such a way that it requires less energy to provide you with the same output level of services. This involves taking measures at all levels, from orienting your home, designing it, building it and living in it.

What is energy Conservation?

Along conservation of energy come all measures that we take to reduce our consumption of energy. The difference between energy efficiency and energy conservation lies to the fact that with conservation of energy we refer to measures that reduce our demanded level of output. For example, lowering our heater thermostat and compensating with heavier clothing indoors would be a measure towards conserving energy whereas, improving thermal insulation and sealing air leaks would be an example of improving energy efficiency.

Conserving energy and using energy efficiently are generally considered passive measures for saving energy and constitute main cornerstones of recent movements towards lowering consumption of fossil fuels (non-renewable) and generally reducing our environmental footprint towards environmental and economic sustainability.

So how can you increase the energy performance of your home? Below we list some main methods for increasing your home energy performance.

Home Insulation

During hot summer periods we need energy for cooling our home to the desired temperature level for internal comfort. On the other hand, during cold winter periods we use energy for heating it. A well insulated home will require less energy to reach internal comfort as proper insulation keeps unwanted heat out during the summer and keeps internal heat from escaping (energy waste) during winter. Consequently, properly insulating your home, roof insulation, wall insulating material, using thermal brakers, thermal glass and thermal frames, will make it consume less energy for heating and cooling and effectively reducing your energy bill.

House heating and cooling

According to the US department of energy, space heating and cooling account for almost 50% of home energy bills. To improve your heating and cooling system at home try using it more sensibly according to your real needs and family shedule. Also, by keeping up with its maintenance such as changing air filters regularly, insulating air ducts on a scheduled basis and having it services according to manufacturers specifications can lead to 20% energy savings.

Energy efficient Electrical appliances and installations

Apart from building design and construction properties of your home, energy efficiency also involves using energy efficient appliances at home. Adopting sensible energy behaviour dictates choosing energy efficient electrical appliances and other equipment for your home. Generally, all energy rated appliances bear an energy certificate that states the appliance’s energy behaviour – energy consumption. Appliances such as electrical house appliances, water heaters, fans, light bulbs and other equipment can significantly increase the energy performance of a home.

Bioclimatic design and home planning

As mentioned, incorporating energy efficiency as early as design stages of your home can be a life saver! Passive energy saving measures such as bioclimatic design, using solar lighting and solar heating for compensating towards home energy needs (for heating and lighting) and designing openings to optimise desired energy gains from surroundings and environment can help increase the energy performance of your home.

Energy consulting and energy audits

If you have an existing home and wish to seriously increase its energy performance you are looking at making an investment now to save energy from all you future energy bills. Apart from above directions, if you want to look into this at the next level it is recommended that you hire a professional to make an energy assessment of your home. That is, identifying your sources of energy waste and setting up a plan to combat your specific energy losses. Energy audits constitute a detailed and effective methodology of identifying sources of energy losses and ‘solving’ them through proper financial evaluations.

Source:http://www.renewablegreenenergypower.com/energy-efficiency-at-home/

References:

http://www.epa.gov/greenhomes/ReduceEnergy.htm

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=heat_cool.pr_hvac

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=about.ab_index

http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/topics/saving-energy-home

In the UK, awareness of climate change and its relation to energy supply is at an all-time high. The current technological and legislative context offers significant financial incentives for the expansion of renewable energy systems. This has created an attractive environment for shared investment in and ownership of renewable energy technologies.

In April 2013 ManagEnergy reported on a new revolving loan fund for community renewable energy projects launched by Cornwall Council (UK). The loan fund, worth EUR 1.2 million, is aimed at community groups to help build renewable energy installations in their local area. At the heart of this model is the principle that the benefits of energy should be localised, and that strong links between communities and energy should be forged to increase awareness and encourage community benefit through the way that agreements are structured. As such, only projects that could evidence strong community benefit were accepted. The Council’s Green Cornwall Programme has made a loan facility available to The Low Carbon Society (TLCS), who is working in partnership with Kabin and Community Energy Plus. This is the first loan facility of its kind for a local authority.

Two projects have applied for the revolving loan fund, former ManagEnergy runner up Community Power Cornwall (CPC) and Helford Energy Society (HES). The first application comprises of three projects while the second is a stand-alone project. Cornwall Council intends to launch another round of funding soon.

The first applicant Community Power Cornwall (CPC) is a co-operative that enables local communities to own and benefit from renewable technologies. All revenue generated will be reinvested locally. The common ownership model created by CPC contributes to a diverse, sustainable and secure energy supply infrastructure, under community control and for community benefit. A portfolio of three projects has been proposed by CPC for the fund application:

Project 1:

• 2 x 80KW wind turbine in Cornwall
• Expected annual output 2011-2012 360,000KWh
• Expected annual carbon saving 2011-2012 188t

Project 2:

• 1 x 10KW wind turbine in Cornwall
• Expected annual output 30,000KWh
• Expected annual carbon saving 15.6t

Project 3:

• 1 x 100KW wind turbine in Cornwall
• Expected annual output 275,000KWh
• Expected annual carbon saving 144t

In 2012 Community Power Cornwall was shortlisted for the ManagEnergy Local Energy Action Award from the European Union. The co-operative was one of only three innovative finalists out of a record 64 submissions from 23 countries.

Helford Energy Society (HES), the second applicant, is a community energy co-operative that was established to benefit people around the Helford river area.

This project will be the first installation for this society. It will secure an income to develop further sites for renewable energy directed by local people. HES is working with Fal Energy Partnership (FEP), Kabin and R-ECO.

Over five years ago HES were granted planning permission for a 10kW wind turbine in the Helford area. The turbine is to be held in common ownership. This year an application was granted to extend the planning permission for a further 3 years, however it stipulated that the height of the turbine must be reduced. HES is will now install at a 3.5kW wind turbine.

These cooperative projects offer inspiration to other communities that share similar characteristics to Cornwall such as rural location, not connected to a gas grid, have poorly insulated buildings and wish to reduce carbon emissions while securing their energy supply through investment in the local economy. Cornwall Council, through launching this initiative, was determined to reinforce the principle of local benefit and only applications from fully constituted Cornish based community groups were eligible. Through embedding this principle, it is hoped that communities will continue to see the benefit of renewable energy and that a less dependent relationship with energy can be fostered.

Related articles:

• Find out more about this Revolving loan fund for community renewable energy projects
• Renewable energy cooperatives
• Community Power Cornwall
• Community Power Cornwall (Community Energy Plus, United Kingdom)

A recently published European Commission Report found that investments in energy efficiency are increasing. However, the report noted that there is limited information on the effectiveness of the different financial support measures, both at EU and national level. Few member states have provided details on the effectiveness of national support measures, making it difficult to obtain a good overview of the impact of financial mechanisms in Europe. A report commissioned by the French Environment and Energy Academy (ADEME) reinforced this message stating that that annual national spending by EU countries on energy efficiency measures varies from €4 to €40 per person, per capita.

According to Paul Hodson, head of Head of Unit C3 (Energy Efficiency) within DG ENER, sufficient investment in energy efficiency is lacking. EUR 100 billion a year of investment is needed to meet the EU’s energy efficiency target of 20% improvement by 2020 but “we’re seeing only about half at the moment”.

A key barrier to increasing investment in energy efficiency projects is the lack of data and the lack of harmonised assessment methods for gathering data. As a result sufficient proof of how much energy savings projects or products can deliver is missing. Evaluating programmes would strengthen the case for increasing public budgets dedicated to energy efficiency as a responsible use of scarce public resources.

Some useful online portals for sharing data and analysing energy efficiency in buildings:

• Building Performance Institute of Europe’s data hub for the energy performance of buildings
• MURE database provides information on energy efficiency policies and measures that have been carried out in the EU.

Other Links:

Lack of data barrier to investors in energy efficiency

Energy efficiency & public-private partnerships: What you need to know

Guidance on Energy Efficiency in Public Buildings

 

Already Brussels is looking beyond 2020 for its climate and energy targets, with the European institutions in recent weeks endorsing 2030 goals and opening public consultation on the 2030 policy framework.

Leading questions include – what type, nature and level of climate and energy targets should be set for post-2020? How can coherence between different policy instruments be attained? How can the energy system best contribute to EU competitiveness?

Günther Oettinger, EU Commissioner for Energy said: “We need to define our climate and energy policy framework for 2030 as soon as possible to ensure proper investment that will give us sustainable growth, affordable competitive energy prices and greater energy security. The new framework must take into account the consequences of the economic crisis, but it must also be ambitious enough to meet the necessary long-term goal of cutting emissions 80-95% by 2050.”

Current EU policy is centered on the three headline targets (20-20-20) to be achieved by 2020:

• GHG emission reductions of 20%
• a 20% share for renewable energy sources
• 20% savings in energy consumption

Looking beyond 2020, the Energy Roadmap 2050 provides a basis for developing a long-term policy together with all stakeholders. First adopted by the European Commission in December 2011, the roadmap was developed in line with the objective of reducing GHG emissions by 80 to 95% by 2050 (compared to 1990 levels), as part of necessary efforts by developed countries as a group. How to achieve the EU’s decarbonisation agenda while at the same time ensuring security of energy supply and competitiveness is a challenging issue, to say the least.

As a staging post on the Energy Roadmap 2050, the Green Paper on the 2030 policy framework is open for public consultation until 2 July 2013. On the basis of the views expressed, the Commission intends to table the EU’s 2030 framework for climate and energy policies by the end of this year.

Connie Hedegaard, EU Commissioner for Climate Action, said: ”Europe’s dependence on foreign fossil fuels is growing every year. That means more expensive and unaffordable energy bills for Europeans. This is not very wise. It’s obviously not wise for the climate, but it’s also not wise for our economy and our competiveness. That is why we have decided that in Europe we want a low-carbon society for 2050. We have targets for 2020, but for most investors 2020 is around the corner. It’s time to define the targets for 2030. The sooner we do that, the more certainty we get to our companies and our investors. And the more ambitious these targets are, the better for the climate.”

Fighting words – but the devil’s in the details. Should the targets be at EU, national or sectoral level and be legally binding? Some argue that the existing targets – and policies to reach them – are not necessarily coherent or cost efficient, or that competitiveness, economic viability and maturity of technologies are not taken sufficiently into account. Also, concerns have been expressed that the EU’s commitment to tackling climate change is not fully reciprocated elsewhere, impacting on the bloc’s economic competitiveness.

ManagEnergy opines that there are at least two aspects of behavioral economics that could impact on setting – and reaching – real climate and energy goals. Optimistically, there may be a positive effect from hyperbolic discounting – meaning that people will be farsighted when planning if both costs and benefits occur in the future. What kind of world do you want in 2030? In 2050? However, in the absence of international binding targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions – and the associated perception of free-loading – will the tendency towards pro-social behavior and fairness be diminished?

Have your say –

try coming up with answers to the questions listed here

For more, see

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/consultations/20130702_green_paper_2030_en.htm

 

We are a long way off solving the problem of climate change. One need only to think of the string of failed climate negotiations or the recent massive investments in tar sands and shale gas to appreciate this. It is a problem rooted in the fact that national governments do not prioritise renewable energy. They happily spend hundreds of billions of dollars on fossil fuel subsidies, while investing only a fraction of this amount in renewables.

The European Parliament yesterday chastised the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development for its explicit interest in financing a new lignite-fired power plant in Kosovo. NGOs hope the bank will pay more attention to the Parliament than it did to civil society and energy experts so far.

posted on the Bankwatch blog by Ionut Apostol, Bankwatch EBRD campaign coordinator

At the end of last year, Kosovo became the newest member of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). One of the first words we heard from the bank on their financing plans for the country indicated an interest to invest in a new 600 MW lignite plant, Kosovo C, planned to be built close to capital Pristina.

EBRD enters Kosovo: Past IFI failures must be heeded (Bankwatch Mail article)

In March this year, the EBRD concretely spelled out what it considers to be investment priorities in its draft strategy for Kosovo (pdf). In the document, the EBRD confirms its interest in giving a loan for the new coal plant, which has been for years pushed by the World Bank and the United States:

“The Bank will consider engagement in the implementation of the greenfield thermal power plant Kosovo C that is planned to start construction in the second half of the strategy period, provided the project complies with EBRD environmental and social standards, its policy on financing energy projects and delivers high transition impacts.”

Following comments to the draft strategy from Bankwatch and Kosovo coalition KOSID and a letter complaining about the hurried nature of the strategy’s public consultation process, the European Parliament now adopted a resolution that strongly criticises the EBRD’s plans. It reads:

“regrets that the EBRD is planning to support new lignite capacity (Kosova e Re) in its draft country strategy, and calls on the Commission to take action to contest plans such as this that run counter to EU climate commitments.”

(See more details in our press release from today)

 

Coal is misguided progress for Kosovo

The EBRD’s enthusiasm for this project is misguided. Burning coal to produce electricity at the country’s two existing coal plants (Kosovo A and Kosovo B) is already costing the country over 100 million euros annually only in health related issues, with people dying prematurely and children suffering respiratory diseases, and building a new plant will perpetuate these health problems.

Importantly, Kosovo already produces more energy than it consumes domestically, but much of it is wasted due to inefficiencies in the distribution network, lack of insulation in buildings, irrational usage such as using electricity for heating, commercial losses (ie. electricity used but not paid for, eg. through illegal connections to the network or unpaid bills).

These are the areas where the EBRD should be focusing on, particularly on remedying technical inefficiencies. In addition, providing support for energy efficiency measures for residential buildings would come a long way in avoiding energy waste and reducing bills for households. Kosovo does not need new coal generating capacity; it needs to stop wasting energy and to explore sustainable energy sources.

An alternatives analysis carried out by the Renewable & Appropriate Energy Laboratory Energy & Resources Group University of California, Berkeley, shows that in the period until 2025, Kosovo can meet its energy needs through energy efficiency improvements, wind and hydro energy, as well as biomass and geo-thermal. This scenario would also result in three times more jobs created for the country, and address environmental problems.

 

Is the EBRD listening?

And these are the messages that Bankwatch sent to the bank in our contribution (pdf) to the public consultation of the strategy draft. The problem is, it seems that the bank could not care less about what NGOs like ours or our colleagues from Kosovar coalition KOSID, who submitted similar points (pdf) to the attention of the bank, have to say.

Why? Because the deadline for submitting the inputs was yesterday, April 18. But the final country strategy document will be approved by the EBRD on May 1, less than 10 working days later. It is highly unlikely that the bank has time and capacity in this interval to seriously assess the fundamental objections we raised.

Despite the bank bragging (pdf) about its openness to civil society in Kosovo, NGOs there are already frustrated with the hurried nature of the development of a document that will send strong but wrong political signals in Kosovo. KOSID and Bankwatch have this week sent a letter to the President of the EBRD (pdf) to criticise the rush of the adoption of such a momentous strategy and the superficiality of the civil society engagement.

The EBRD claims it has come a long way over the past years when it comes to cleaning up its energy portfolio and improving communication with stakeholders and certainly it has increased its renewables and energy efficiency investments.

With regards to the energy lending, however, Bankwatch maintains that the continued support for fossil fuels and above all, coal, undermines this progress and locks in an unsustainable energy infrastructure in many countries. And the start of operations in Kosovo does not set an example for an improved communication with civil society.

Read also

• European Parliament wants green energy, not coal, as part of Kosovo integration (Bankwatch press release)
• Kosova e Re lignite power plant, Kosovo (Project background)
• EBRD enters Kosovo: Past IFI failures must be heeded (Bankwatch Mail article)
• NGOs to banks: Never again Sostanj (bankwatch.blogactiv.eu)

Within the general target group of ‘public authority’,regional and local authorities were identified as having a higher priority, both with ca. 72 % or the answers, while national authorities were ticked by 56 % of participants.

In response to the question ‘Which sector should IEE III focus on?’ The public sector received 47% of the answers, then transport just over 46% and households 45%.

The inputs from this stakeholder consultation will be taken into consideration in shaping the IEE II successor programme – the ‘Market Uptake of Energy Innovation’ priority area of Horizon 2020′s Energy Challenge on Secure, clean and efficient energy.

Read the full report here

“The Ministry of Magic has always considered the education of young witches and wizards to be of a vital importance. Although each headmaster has brought something new to this… historic school, progress for the sake of progress must be discouraged. Let us preserve what must be preserved, perfect what can be perfected and prune practices that ought to be… prohibited!”

 

With those words, Dolores Umbridge enters the life of Harry Potter at the start of his 5^th year at Hogwarts School of Wizardry and Witchcraft. A little speech aptly interpreted by Hermione Granger as “The Ministry is interfering at Hogwarts.” Played by Imelda Staunton, these days, Umbridge is being impersonated by UK Secretary of State for Education Michael Gove, or at least according to a post on the UK Youth Climate Coalition (UKYCC) blog, calling Mr. Gove the Climate Change High Inquisitor.

Seriously now, what’s happening?

After the much-talked-about introduction of climate change into formal education curricula across the UK in 2007 — including the Brown ministry being taken to court over the distribution of Al Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth — the current Cameron ministry, in the person of its Secretary of State for Education Mr. Gove, has decided to take it off again. The change means climate change as such will be scrapped in the so-called Key Stages 1 to 3, roughly corresponding to primary and the first half of secondary school, or everyone under the age of 14.

Are they just reconsidering a small bit of policy then?

According to a spokesperson of the Department of Education, there is no need for concern, as “all children will learn about climate change. It is specifically mentioned in the science curriculum and both climate and weather feature throughout the geography curriculum.” Rita Gardner, director of the Royal Geographical Society, on the other hand, welcomes the change, saying that “in the past, in some instances, young people were going to start on climate change without really knowing about climate” and she expects students to be better prepared by the time they start discussing climate change earnestly at the age of 14.

Various other stakeholders were quick to denounce the Ministry’s move though, and with reason. Arguments range from the desired content of climate education, over the responsibility towards future generations, to what the government’s former science advisor Prof Sir David King calls “a major political interference with the geography syllabus.”

One of the loudest protests against the decision comes from a secondary school student, Esha Marwaha, a member of the UK Youth Climate Coalition (UKYCC). Outraged by the move, Esha launched a petition which collected 25,000 signatures in less than two weeks, calling on Mr. Gove to “Keep Climate Change in the Curriculum.” A call supported by the results of a recent AEGEE survey on sustainability, where 73% of respondents asked for more attention for sustainability education.

Other opponents of the decision include John Ashton, former government climate change envoy, and Jim Hickman, author of “Will Jellyfish Rule the World”, a book about climate change aimed at 8 to 10-year-olds. Both disagree with Ms. Gardner’s claim that kids younger than 14 could not grasp the complexities of climate change. “We must never underestimate a child’s intelligence, or their capacity and eagerness to learn something new,” says Mr. Hickman, while Mr. Ashton also touches upon our responsibility towards the next generation: “We cannot let our children face such a journey without equipping them at the earliest possible stage with a compass.”

An approach which actually seems to work, and is being supported by climate campaigners and scientists who say teaching about climate change in schools has helped mobilise young people to be the most vociferous advocates of action by governments, business and society to tackle the issue. Coincidence then that the UK government is trying to eliminate climate education for young students?

Not according to Esha, who claims that “our government intend to not only fail to act on climate change themselves, but to obscure the truth, and any chance young people have to act.” Camilla Born, international expert at UKYCC shares her point of view: “It appears climate change is being systematically removed from the curriculum.” A frightening perspective, when at the same time in the US, the National Research Council is updating nationwide science standards to include climate change, building on the fact that “only one in five students feel they have a good handle on climate change from what they’ve learned  in school.”

Moreover, effective climate change education should include much more than just the scientific functioning of climate and weather. As Mr. Ashton puts it, “what’s important is not so much the chemistry as the impact on the lives of human beings.” This coincides with the findings of Rosalyn McKeown Ph.D. in her seminal Education for Sustainability toolkit, where she states that we need more than a theoretical discussion at this point, and that education therefore needs to be used “as a tool to achieve sustainability”.

Finally, the Ministry defends its decision by pointing out that the change would not forbid the teaching of climate change — which, luckily, prevents this from being a perfect Umbridge parallel — but allows ‘sensible teachers’ to introduce it whenever they feel ready for it. Mr. Hickman draws a complete comparison between the current and proposed guidelines to prove this possibility, but not every teacher will read those guidelines with the same intent of adding climate change on his own initiative. As Mr. Ashton points out, the changes “would make it legitimate not to do so.”

In conclusion, the Ministry tries to justify removing climate change from the lower curricula by using a list of highly debatable arguments, which have been strongly opposed by both scientists and civil society:

1. Climate change is too complex to teach below 14 — Wrong, we cannot start educating early enough.
2. Teaching climate change is still allowed — Wrong, it will only be effective when clearly supported.
3. Climate change is still sufficiently mentioned — Wrong, this change will decrease kids’ readiness.

AEGEE-Europe/ European Students’ Forum strongly supports actions and campaigns for a wide-spread presence of education for sustainability at all stages of the education curriculum. This was recently reflected in the almost unanimous vote of AEGEE-locals in the Netherlands for the topic as focus for lobbying by the Dutch youth council (NJR), which was subsequently confirmed at the NJR’s general assembly.

In times of increasing attention for sustainability in all parts of social life, removing climate change from the curriculum is not only illogical but also counter-productive in the joint effort for more sustainable ways of living. As Esha puts it: “All the people who are passionate about this issue call for more climate education, not less. We should be taking a step forwards, not backwards.”

AEGEE-Europe therefore supports the petition by Esha and the UKYCC, and urges the British government to reverse its decision and keep climate change firmly rooted in the educational curriculum. In the end, we all have to fight climate change or face its effects, and education is key in providing us with the knowledge and tools for doing this. Ignoring this fact is not serving anyone.

 

Written by Mathieu Soete, AEGEE-Europe Policy Officer on Sustainability

My aim as Policy Officer is to bring the opinion of AEGEE to the policy-makers while sharing opportunities for learning and action. But for this I need your input of course. So contact me at mathieu.soete@aegee.org to share your ideas and questions.

 

What is a “green-roof?” Some say the term conjures up images of green vegetation on a building’s roof; others refer to the concept of making a building’s roof green from an environmental standpoint with green energy solar panels. It turns out that green vegetation on your roof can actually help boost your roof-mounted photovoltaic panels.

Green building roofs

Keeping a garden on the roof is an eco-friendly solution that helps increase the energy performance of a building as it reduces unwanted heat gains in the summer and heat losses in winter – (see green buildings: Rational solutions). The soil and insulation and waterproofing materials that form the infrastructure for planting a roof garden act as an effective insulation for the building at the place where most energy losses occur – the roof. In summer, radiation heat is reduced as it does not reach the roof, thus does not enter inside the building, whereas, in winter, it acts as an effective insulation that keeps the required internal heat inside. The end result may result in energy savings for the building of up to 30 percent.

In addition, apart from the immediate cooling effect of a roof-garden building, green roofs in a community may lead to a micro-climate cooling effect that may be beneficial to the broader related area and community. Consequently, green roofing may help combat “heat island” effects in urban areas – a term used to describe the accumulation of heat buildup in urban areas that eventually remain hotter than rural surroundings.

Research documented in Green Roof Valuation shows that vegetated rooftops can facilitate solutions of complex environmental problems in urban areas. The report suggests that green (vegetated) rooftops, when compared to conventional rooftops, may yield a Net Present Value (over a period of energy savings for up to 40 years) that is 20–30 percent lower; thus, a viable investment over conventional rooftops.

Specifically, the initial additional investment required to make a roof plantable with green vegetation can in fact be recovered, through energy savings, by the time an alternative conventional roof would need replacing. In addition, findings suggests that green roofs may help improve the quality of the urban air, yielding additional benefits in monetary terms and reducing harmful atmospheric emissions. An illustrative example is that a 2000 square meter green (vegetated) roof is estimated to yield approximately $900 to $3300. Consequently, maintaining well vegetated roof-gardens may lead to significant financial, environmental and aesthetic benefits primarily from saving conventional energy but also through urban air quality improvement, and micro-climate cooling effects.

How green roofs can help boost photovoltaic panels’ performance

In addition to these benefits of maintaining a green roof garden, a green roof can boost the performance of roof-mounted photovoltaic panels. One of the biggest and most significant performance parameters of photovoltaic panels is temperature, thus solar panel manufacturers specify their temperature coefficient. The performance boost by combining a solar roof-garden with solar photovoltaic panels has been the object of various research teams; findings suggest a boost effect around 15-16 percent output more than conventional roof mounted panels (i.e. without green vegetation). The increase in photovoltaic performance is mainly due to the cooling effect of the green garden, which is magnified in hot climates and during the hot summer season. An illustration of this result can also be found by comparing the output performance of a photovoltaic panel when it is installed in urban areas (e.g. on a conventional rooftop) with the corresponding performance when installed in rural areas.

Consequently, when having to make a decision about either of these solutions, it is important to note how the combination of both roof solar panels and a green (vegetated) roof, can offer extended benefits that are financial, environmental and architectural. Combining the energy savings from a roof garden, together with the boost effect on the performance of photovoltaic panels, can help reduce the cost of solar panels (see – how much solar panels cost) , thus making photovoltaic panels financially more viable especially for residential applications (solar panels for home).

source: green-roofs-boost-photovoltaic-panels

Following a fake press release in which the EIB ‘announced’ its divestment from coal, activists struck again the next day during the bank’s annual press conference. EIB President Werner Hoyer received the 2013 ‘World Coal Down’ award on behalf of all EU citizens. Unfortunately he had to put an end to the rumours of the EIB’s coal divestment, saying it was “complete nonsense”.

Originally posted on the Counter Balance blog

“Lets hope the EIB changes its mind by June, when it is supposed to have completed its energy policy review”, says Berber Verpoest from Counter Balance, a coalition of organisations behind the hoax. “The EIB presents itself as a climate action champion, but we don’t see how it can be a leader on climate action if it refuses to be a coal down champ. Coal is the dirtiest of all conventional fossil fuels.”

The aim of the action was to highlight this contradiction within the Bank’s operations. “But this isn’t just about the Bank. It’s EU member states, the European Commission and the European Parliament that ultimately decide what it does. These EU decision-makers know what they have to do and now it’s high time they showed us that they’re sincere in their desire to ensure a better future for generations to come”, explains Mark Fodor, executive director for Bankwatch, one of the organisations in Counter Balance. “The absurdity of this is that all we’re really asking is that the EU bank’s energy policy be aligned with the EU’s own 2050 sustainability goals. Simply put: no more investments locking us in into dirty energy infrastructure and a full shift towards renewables and energy efficiency.”

With this action Counter Balance and CEE Bankwatch hope to remind the Bank and EU policy makers of where their priorities should lie. It fits within the campaign of both organisations around the Bank’s energy policy revision. Besides getting involved in official consultations and advocacy meetings an important role is to raise awareness among EU citizens. “It’s a challenge to create attention around such a technical issue and it requires creativity to put it in the spotlight”, Verpoest explains.

It took us quite some preparation but luckily we could count on the professional assistance of the Yeslab, the team behind the know hoax machine The Yes Men.

Our starting point was to come up with a positive scenario for the EIB. Instead of blaming the Bank for bad projects we rather wanted to show what we think is the only way forward. We also wanted to encourage the bank because we think it actually can play a much more successful role in financing an energy shift. The award in the form of a smoke stack with flowers coming out – a design by Afreux – visualises this idea perfectly. “I’d love to see this in a real coal fired power plant. Maybe even Sostanj”, Fodor dreams out aloud referring to the highly controversial Slovenian coal plant for which half of a billion euros of EIB support is still pending.

Read more at bankwatch.org/eibhoax >>

Related articles

• Members of European Parliament call on EIB not to finance Slovene lignite power plant (bankwatch.blogactiv.eu)
• A mostly accommodating lion’s den – the second civil society meeting with the EIB Board of Directors (bankwatch.blogactiv.eu)

A Bankwatch competition for ideas for EU funds investments that benefit the sustainable development of European communities could offer inspiration for EU and national decision makers. At the final award ceremony in Brussels, the winners told us about their ideas and how EU funding could benefit their countries.

Posted on the Bankwatch blog by Patrycja Romaniuk, EU funds campaigner in Poland

While negotiations over the EU budget 2014-2020 are still in limbo with many Members of the European Parliament ready to veto the deal from two weeks ago many decisions on the nitty-gritty details of how exactly the (less than) one trillion euros will be spent are yet to come.

Coverage so far of the “big-numbers game” of EU budget negotiations left little media space for the voices of those who are to benefit of EU funded projects. Yet, for those who listen carefully, these voices are not only loud and clear, they can also help make decisions that are in the interest of European citizens and communities.

Such was the intention of Bankwatch’s Better Ideas competition, that in the second half of 2012 invited ideas for projects that best contribute to the sustainable development in people’s communities. The outcome stands in sharp contrast to a supposed EU fatigue: Not only the number of project ideas that we received but also their quality surprised our national campaigners. There is, for example:

• the community garden scheme in Stredokluky (CZ) that promises to create jobs in a rural area, provide local, ecological food and restore land and biodiversity;
• or the center for eco-passive building technologies in Kock (PL) that would offer consulting, training and production of eco-passive building technology and would employ around 15-20 people.

And the list goes on (pdf).

This week, the winners of the national competitions as well as jury members from all participating countries joined us in Brussels for the final award ceremony. It was inspiring to see all these people from across central and eastern Europe who care about the future of their communities, countries and “their” Europe.

We asked some of them to tell us what inspired them to take part in the contest, how they see their project’s potential to receive funding and what they would like to tell national and EU decision makers. See for yourself:

---

---

Read more

See a list of all winning projects of Bankwatch’s Better Ideas competition (pdf)

Read our positions on greening EU funds

Related articles

• Continued EU budget battle could sacrifice clean energy investments and clog economic recovery (bankwatch.blogactiv.eu)
• EU budget update: Are Europe’s leaders serious about taking the green shirt off all of our backs? (bankwatch.blogactiv.eu)
• A Map of Clean, Green Spending from the EU Budget (bankwatch.blogactiv.eu)

Germany is about to lose its image as the most climate-friendly EU member country.

The precipitated closure by 2022 of all nuclear power plants has led to a costly expansion of PV and wind power capacity, fed by exorbitant feed-in tariffs for widely scattered small-scale electricity producers. The German support regime for PV power generation has become the most costly in the world, causing electricity rates for households and normal business to soar out of proportion and leading to rising complaints from industry about its international competitiveness.

The government has failed to coordinate the expansion of solar and wind power generation with that of the grids by lowering the costly incentives for solar and wind generation capacity. The improvement and expansion of its grid must have absolute priority over that of additional PV or wind-power capacity.

The government should also stop resisting EU proposals to withdraw C02 surplus emission certificates from the market in order to raise the abysmally low C02 price and encourage investments in low emission technologies.

The same goes for the reservations about much stricter car Co2 emission standards – of only 70g/km by 2025.

The latest absurdity concerns the 2012 EU energy efficiency directive,which obliges members states to reduce their energy consumption by 1.5 per cent annually until 2020.

Instead of taking effective measures to reduce excessive energy consumption, e.g. by massive thermal upgrading of its building building stock, which accounts for 40 per cent of total energy consumption, the government hopes to get away with measures that have been taken years ago and are unrelated to higher energy efficiency like highway user fees for trucks, fees for grids use, electricity tax or the law on renewable energy.

Germany needs a thorough debate on how to maintain economic competitiveness with much lower Co2 emissions, after the last nuclear power plant will have been shut off in 2022.

It should phase out its expensive subsidies for renewable energies and focus on enhancing energy efficiency.
The building stock offers the widest scope for both lower energy consumption and higher employment.

Eberhard Rhein, Brussels.

A meeting of civil society and the European Investment Bank’s Board of Directors saw a surprising degree of agreement between two often adverse groups.

posted on the Bankwatch blog by Anna Roggenbuck, EIB campaign coordinator

This week saw the second ever meeting between the European Investment Bank’s Board of Directors and civil society representatives. It may have been a less historical event than the first meeting in 2011, but it was still a welcomed chance for non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to discuss the EIB’s operations with the bank’s high level staff and directors.

The impression I got was that both NGOs and EIB appreciated the exchange and I’m glad the EIB committed to repeating and even intensifying similar meetings in the future.

At the session on climate action – more relevant than ever now that the EIB is reviewing its energy lending strategy – the EIB heard a loud and clear call from civil society organisations that it needs to more seriously tackle the European Union’s long-term de-carbonisation objective for 2050. As a starting point – an equally unanimous opinion among NGOs – the EIB should effectively stop its lending to coal, even if it is not a major part of its energy portfolio. Instead it should boost its investment in energy efficiency (highlighted also by Austrian Director Wolfgang Nitsche) and renewables financing, which can both still be improved.

I had a similar impression of general agreement at the session on promoting jobs and growth in Europe. NGO participants’ view that environmental sustainability and economic growth should not be seen as a trade off corresponded to EIB statements about the priority of long-term sustainability objectives. The admission by EIB staff that a too strong focus on GDP growth has its limitations rather unexpectedly concurred with the opinions from NGOs, who called for corrections in the EIB’s operations for example through the application of life cycle analyses.

A more articulate, almost fundamental rift however marked the session on growth and development. Faced with calls for much more accountability and the full inclusion of local communities, the EIBs vice-president Pim van Ballekom claimed there was no need because the EIB was fully accountable – after all projects need consent from the European Commission and hosting country governments. That this isn’t nearly enough in the practice of development finance was exemplified by Robert Kugonza from the Ugandan NAPE who invoked the case of the Bujagali Dam to underline the urgent need for more transparency and greater inclusion of affected communities.

Similarly, while the EIB staff regards its year old Results Measurement Framework (REM) as a “game changer” in measuring the EIB’s impacts outside of Europe (a long-standing call by civil society organisations), NGOs complained they had no chance to get acquainted with the methodology because it hasn’t been made publicly available.

Read more

---

More on the European Investment Bank, the ‘EU bank’

Background, publications and news on the Šoštanj lignite power plant

Finally, the afternoon seminar with the Board of Directors saw Slovenian organisations calling on the EIB directors not to finance the Šoštanj power plant – a project facing several corruption investigations at the moment. That the EIB has always treated all fraud and corruption allegations very seriously, as Secretary General Alfonso Querejeta emphasised, hopefully means that no money will be disbursed until the investigations are resolved.

Debating differing views can be challenging – no doubt both for NGO and EIB personnel – but there is no alternative to open discussions if the EIB wants to be an accountable institution. Therefore I appreciate the chance to discuss with the EIB Board of Directors and I am willing to continue on future occasions.

Yet, more important than constructive discussions is the practical implementation of what is widely seen as the right way forward. It is now up to the EIB management and staff to follow-up on some of the so far only abstract accordance.

Related articles

• Members of European Parliament call on EIB not to finance Slovene lignite power plant (bankwatch.blogactiv.eu)

A campaign against a new lignite power plant in Kosovo uses World Bank figures to highlight the health damage resulting from pollution.

Posted on the Bankwatch blog by Sven Haertig-Tokarz, Bankwatch web editor

We blogged last week about a new coal power plant near Pristina in Kosovo, that is due to receive support by the World Bank and may also be a project the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development is willing to get behind.

The vital opposition against developing even more coal capacities in Kosovo, a country that already now creates 98 percent of electricity from lignite, is now complemented by a newly launched ad campaign (see the image below). It highlights the extraordinary negative health impacts from coal combustion that Kosovars have to endure. (Interestingly, the numbers are taken from a study by the World Bank, the same institution that now could offer millions to perpetuate the situation.)

The campaign reminds us that environmental and climate impacts are not the only reasons to oppose energy production from coal. Neither are meteorological projections into the next decades always required to argue against coal. These health impacts are much more immediate and they bring very concrete and measurable distress for local populations.

The World Bank and the EBRD should heed these figures coming from their own ranks. Coal power does not belong to a future that is worth living in. Now is the time to phase out coal financing.

Here is also one of the three TV ads of the campaign:

More

Read the campaign’s press release:
Why does Kosovo need a new coal-fired thermal power plant, when other clean sources for generating electricity are available?

See the campaign’s TV ads: http://www.kosid.org/multimedia